Unbalanced trading (1 Viewer)

[JD8p]

Wait...you have to do 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 deals? That is insane.

Unbalanced trades are the norm, there are no issues with them whatsoever.

In fact, we have had 3 deals in my redraft league already, 2 of which were unbalanced (2-1 and 3-2).

 

[Road Warriors]

Our league has always had balanced trading 1 for 1 2 for 2 etc. We are consideing going to an unbalanced system 2 for 1 3 for 2, has anyone had any problems in the past with this system. The members will still have vetoing power for unfair trades.

I have a problem with the bolded. LET PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN TEAMS. UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION NEVER VETO.

I would rather have a majority of 12 guys decide if a trade is unfair than one commissioner make the same decision.

But they don't do that. They vote their interest. Presumably the commish does not, or people would leave.

Then it's not a good league.

No league that allows owners to vote on trades is a good league.

That is a foolish statement. I could see granting full power to a commissioner if they are not a team owner in the league they commish. However if the commish is an owner then there should be a contingency for the owners to balance his power. It is foolish to do otherwise.

In a league of "knowns" I disagree. Either you trust your commissioner or you don't. If you don't, you either get a new commissioner or you leave the league. We've had a "commissioner approves all trades" rule for our 12-year league with not a single trade overturned. The commissioner has a guideline to follow on the trade approval process, which works quite well for us. It's a keeper league, so trade evaluation has to be a bit fuzzy with future value considered.

We have had several trades that would have been overturned by league vote, however. Noting the keeper format, we often have bottom of the league teams trading present value for future value. These trades will always create a bit of an uproar from the other contending teams, as they appear unfair when evaluating from a current year perspective. I would say that at least one trade / year has created a controversy among the owners due to perceived "unfair" trades.

The end process our commissioner uses is this: If he can't easily see how a trade helps one side of the trade, he talks to the owner about his reason for making the trade. If the owner can articulate his reasons ( regardless of whether the Commissioner agrees with the reasoning or not ), the trade stands. In other words, we use a trade evaluation process of "each owner believes ( correctly or otherwise ) they are helping their team improve." If that process is true, the trade is approved.

In a league of "unknowns" I still wouldn't want owner vote veto power, but my expectation that the commissioner be fair and reasonable are greatly reduced. Comes with the territory, I guess.

 

[atcdav]

we have always doe unbalanced trades, although I dont see the point, team with an extra player has to drop one anyway so why not send that player in the trade to keep things even